KNK PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS Vs. S.N. PADMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the opposite party (OP) builder/developer against the impugned order dated 19.3.2010, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (hereinafter referred as 'State Commission'), in Appeal No.2470/2009, KNK Promoters & Developers vs. S.N. Padmini, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore dated 26.6.2009 in consumer complaint no.2403 of 2008, filed by the present respondent, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant became a member of a scheme formulated by the OP developer under which, a site measuring 60 ft. x 40 ft. valued at Rs.1,10,800/- was to be given to the complainant by the OP builder, inclusive of development charges. It has been stated that the complainant deposited a total amount of Rs.81,000/- in monthly instalments upto 4.8.1998 with the developer. However, the OP instead of completing the project, starting selling the sites to non-members for higher consideration, which amounted to alleged deficiency in service on their part. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 9.7.2008 to the opponent for allotment of site, stating that the complainant was ready to pay the balance amount, if payable. However, on the failure of the OP builder to allot her the site, the consumer complaint dated 17.11.2008 was filed, seeking directions to the OP to allot 60 ft x 40 ft. site in their residential layout and also to pay damages of Rs.10 lakhs with further interest @ 18% per annum.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP builder by filing a written reply before the District Forum, in which they stated that the complaint was barred by limitation, having been filed after more than 18 years of the booking. Moreover, the complainant had become a member of the scheme on 8.6.1996 and the duration of the scheme was 48 months only. The complainant failed to make payment of the balance monthly instalments, although an opportunity was provided to her to remit the balance amount, alongwith registration charges and get the site registered on or before 30.4.2004. The OP stated that their staff had gone to the house of complainant's daughter a number of times, requesting her to make payment of the balance amount, but the same was not paid. There was, therefore, no cause of action for the complainant to file the said complaint, which should be dismissed.